607
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 65 points 1 year ago

Many users called lawmakers' offices to complain, congressional staffers told Politico. "It's so so bad. Our phones have not stopped ringing. They're teenagers and old people saying they spend their whole day on the app and we can't take it away," one House GOP staffer was quoted as saying.

and they still voted 50-0. really tells you something about how much these politicians are willing to listen to their constituents.

[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It was a 50-0 to pass the commission and then go to the House floor for a vote and then the Senate for a vote and finally signed into law by the president unless he vetoes it, which is possible imo.

Honestly, teenagers and old people are the sorts of folks that need to be protected from themselves, I might just call in to my local representative to voice my support of forced sale, operating restrictions, or even outright ban.

EDIT: I sent him an email.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 48 points 1 year ago
[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Love to, I think the 5 Bn USD FTC fine was a little light considering no jailtime was given. I hope their recent lawsuits lead to breaking the company up again.

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

what are you even trying to say here? that it’s okay for politicians to ignore entire demographics? or that it’s only okay for them to ignore entire demographics if, ultimately, it’s left up to a different group of politicians to pass the law?

i don’t use tiktok or have any interest in the app itself, but it’s still very alarming to see a vote go through 50-0 despite a “nonstop” flood of calls opposing it.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 16 points 1 year ago

Yeah honestly if a bunch of addicted teens and old people were calling me screaming that I can't take away their drug of choice when that's not even what's happening, and it's not being taken away just moved to where there can be more control on quality.... Then I would be really considering the damage this is doing to them.

I don't know if supporting the junkies being taken advantage of is the altruistic take that these "absolute freedom" supporters think it is.

[-] Misconduct@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

The fact that you guys just ate up that rhetoric without any hesitation... Like, you just happily believe it's a bunch of "addicted old people and teenagers"? Is this reddit? Did I make a wrong turn at common sense and critical thinking?

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 0 points 1 year ago

Uh dude... I know people addicted that got the email to message their representative. They will stop talking in a conversation and pull out their phone and just scroll through a few videos.

I struggle to believe so many would be messaging just out of laziness but don't question that being the age groups that would respond most to that kind of targeted messaging into action.

[-] Misconduct@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago

Nobody got an email. You don't know shit.

I never denied they sent a notification to people in the app. It offered to help get in touch with local reps. Why would people exercising their rights to communicate with politicians bother you in any way? That's weird.

Messaging out of laziness? What does that even mean? They were calling their local reps to voice their discontent.

The people addicted comment just makes you look petty and ignorant. It might be time for you to graduate to Facebook.

[-] Misconduct@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not just teenagers and old people. That's just some bullshit rhetoric that you ate right up without question. Because of course you did. Millennials/middle age folk are abundant on TikTok as well as young adults.

The audacity of some of you to jump into action just to spite "teenagers and old people" is shameful. So easily manipulated.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 5 points 1 year ago

It also tells you something about all the supposed gridlock in Washington that can magically evaporate when there's money and power to be gained from it.

[-] Atyno@dmv.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

From what I read, the calls actually evaporated opposition to the bill.

Which, I'm NGL, if you're worried about an app being used by a foreign adversary to encourage anti-social behavior in your youth, a bunch of people calling in acting like drug addicts getting their drugs taken away is only going to erase doubts.

It doesn't help that they'd even be more justified when it's known that it was caused by users getting pushed notified by Tik Tok to do it.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Encouraging people to contact their representatives and demand action? Congress clearly can't have this. How will they do their jobs if they are constantly forced to engage with their constituents?

[-] nialv7@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Call to action from, say, activist groups is very different from call to action from a billion-dollar company. This does make me really worried about how much influencer TikTok has on people ngl

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

How many of us stood up for net neutrality at the behest of Reddit?

[-] Atyno@dmv.social 2 points 1 year ago

In my opinion, considering Tiktok's algo they had the best circumstance to notify a mix of their users more aligned with the actual electorate. The fact they ended up with the worst representation of their user base when it came to confirming the suspicions of politicians says everything.

[-] realharo@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Are they "taking it away" though? Do normal people care about who owns it? Are they just worried about an unlikely ban?

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

you’re taking it as a given that bytedance will sell the app if this law passes. there is a chance that they won’t want to sell and then the app will be banned. (but i think this unlikely.)

also, if i’m understanding things correctly, there’s the possibility that they do sell and the app still gets banned. the article says

An app would be allowed to stay in the US market after a divestiture if the president determines that the sale "would result in the relevant covered company no longer being controlled by a foreign adversary."

depending on who the next president is, there’s no guarantee that they’ll say any sale will result in the company not being controlled by a foreign adversary. (although this past is just speculation.)

anyways. this bill will certainly raise the chances that the app will be banned in the US. (and it opens the door for other apps to get banned if the US doesn’t like the country they were developed in.)

load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 08 Mar 2024
607 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

68306 readers
2990 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS